Searching an Innocent Man; Abuse of Probable Cause by Fairfax County Officers

Published On December 21, 2012 | By CopBlock | Articles

The following article was submitted via Cop Block’s submit tab by DB.

I am writing this to quell my nerves and expel, to the extent that I can, from my mind the distress I have endured thanks to an armed man in tactical gear. I recently had a run-in with a Fairfax County K-9 unit, whom I failed to get the name of during our encounter. It was 11:30 PM and I was driving down a main thoroughfare, heading home after a night of studying for finals and binge drinking coffee (I had consumed about 6 cups and a shot of espresso in the past 8 hours). I saw a bunch of flashing blue lights ahead and decided that I better turn around and get some gas and hope the revenue fest was over before I finished and headed home. I did this of course not because I had previously consumed alcohol or drugs, but because I did need gas and my inspection sticker was several months past due. I saw a break in the median and went for it, the last turn-around before what I suspected was a DUI checkpoint. Then, I noticed the headlights of an SUV turn on in the church parking lot across from where I am turning. “Shit!” I thought, because I knew it was a cop, waiting for anyone trying to “avoid” whatever fate awaits them ahead. I turned, and as I did I saw him flip on his lights and follow; I had no choice but to pull over at that point so that is what I did.

The officer walked up to the car and I cracked the window as he approached and demanded my license and registration, which I obliged to give him. Then he asked, “How much have you had to drink tonight?” I responded, “Just coffee!” He said that my pupils were dilated and that, “Coffee doesn’t do that,” to which I did not respond. In fact, coffee in large doses (of which I had had) can have that effect; it is a stimulant that activates the central nervous system causing the production of adrenaline, which in turn causes pupil dilation. He went to call in my license and run my plates; when he returned he asked that I step out of the vehicle. I asked, “For what reason?” He responded, “Because the law states that I have the authority to do so.” It does in fact; I didn’t ask for the statute but exited the vehicle making sure to roll up the window, turn it off, lock the doors and pocket the keys.

Once I was out he asked if I had any weapons or firearms on me or in the vehicle. I believe he asked because when he ran my license he noticed that I have a concealed carry permit. I told him that I didn’t and he told me he asked “…because I have a concealed permit,” (which I discerned and so nod). He then asked again if I have, “…any weapons, or knives…” At this my memory was jarred about my pocket-knife (which I think of as a tool, not a weapon) and I lifted my shirt to show him so he could take it (as is, regretfully, protocol). He began questioning me again about how much I’d had to drink, repeating the mantra that caffeine does not cause dilated pupils and telling me that, “If [I'd] only had one or two beers, tell [him], and we can work something out.” He then inquired about drugs I have done to which I again responded with the truth that I have and do not take any drugs, prescription or otherwise. He responded by telling me to stop lying to him and if I only had a small amount he didn’t really care (as if I am supposed to trust someone who, obviously, does not trust me). He repeated this mantra, ad nauseum, that I could tell him if I’d had a little to drink or had even a small quantity of drugs, and that he didn’t really care about it if I had a small amount, then mentions the traffic violations he could charge me with if he’d wanted to for turning around where I did. I repeated the truth and he called me a liar again. Then I was told it was my last chance to tell him, just before the drug dog arrived. I repeated the truth, but mentioned I had some sudo-ephedrine which I used to fight a bad cold during flu season to determine [mainly] if that would cue the dog since it is an ingredient sometimes used in methamphetamines. I was swiftly assured, “Not unless you’re cooking meth with it!”

The dog arrived and was run around my car three times until it decided to stand and put its paws on my window – this is supposedly an indication that it has detected drugs (which did not exist, I might add). This is considered probable cause, so the first officer requested my keys and I turned them over, again because the law requires that I give them up at this point or he could take them or open the vehicle by force. They disordered the contents of my car and during the search I commented to the officer watching over me, as I sat (as previously ordered) on the cold damp ground shivering, about what the officer in my truck was finding because I could discern what I had that may have been considered suspicious. As he moved to the driver side I commented that he’d find a plastic grocery bag with a box of condoms under the front seat, probably expired! I kid, “I doubt he’ll find that.” He chuckled. Sure enough I looked over to see the searching officer crouched on the ground pulling something from under my seat. “Told you!” I said. As I already knew, they found nothing in their search and asked to look in the back of my truck, which I had to request my knife back from them to open since the bed is covered with a tonneau and the tailgate handle is broken. I found a bit of humor in the fact that I had control over that aspect as I opened it, knife in hand. They found what I’d suspected too: an old street bicycle I had purchased from a friend a few weeks earlier and not one drop of alcohol or spec of drugs. Go figure!

The officer at this point walked around to the front of my truck, noticed the leaves under my windshield wipers, covering up the month designation of my out of date inspection sticker, and ripped them off. I heard him say, “Shit,” then to me, “Is this why you were avoiding the checkpoint, because of your out of date inspection sticker?!” I conceded as it was not a moving violation, but almost thought I would’ve made it through the ordeal without that being discovered. Acting as if he was being a nice guy (and I think he felt a bit bad then) he told me that he is going to let me go and only issue a warning for the inspection sticker and the other “violations.” He then asked if I knew that if I parked anywhere on campus or on a public road that I risked getting a ticket for the inspection sticker. I said, “I do, thus the reason for the leaf!” He chuckled at that and said, “Alright, you can leave.”

It should be noted that I was nervous the entire time, after being asked to step out of the car, even shaking due to a combination of the cold-damp ground I was forced to sit on, nerves, and excessive amounts of a stimulant known on the streets as “caffeine” stimulating my central nervous system. The officer at some point claimed that was a “sign” that I was doing something wrong. Funny thing is, I assumed a man with a gun that could kill me, plant drugs on me or in my vehicle, subsequently claim a legal motive and get off scott-free while being paid during the trial and defended by the state, would be enough to make anyone nervous, especially after being disarmed. In the end, by avoiding the revenue checkpoint, I undoubtedly avoided a ticket for my out of date inspection, even though I lost an hour of my life and now have to sort through all chaotic mess that is now the cab of my truck. I handled the situation well I think and did not incriminate myself in any way. (I mean, how could I have?! I had violated none of their prohibition laws.) But I will leave the decision as to how I, or the officer, handled the situation up to the reader.

 

Like this Article? Share it!

About The Author

When you see "CopBlock" as the author it means it was submitted via our contact tab - see top of page. Anyone can share their police related story with CopBlock.org via this tab, we thank you in advance.
  • dikc

    get used to it and get used to cavity searches. where a socialist country now with corrupt madmen authoritarians in control.

  • t.

    So you tried to avoid the checkpoint and got pulled over. Check.

  • BluEyeDevil

    As unconstitutional as a checkpoint is…you should have just pulled up to it. I will use the old pig mantra, “if you did nothing wrong than you have nothing to hide”. Having said that, did you notice how the pig kept trying to git you to incriminate yourself. That is when you pull out the old, “am I being detained or am I free to go”. If so, write your ticket and let me go. Don’t ever give up your rights to these nazi’s. Don’t consent to a search, later that will help you court. Tell him you have nothing more to say and just comply because he will KILL you…they have been known to shoot unarmed people a lot lately, or taze you until your convulsing on the floor until your heart pops, or possibly an anal cavity search right on the highway (especially if they think you have a small amount of marijuana in your ass). I mean what a major bust. I wonder if it was worth the law suit but more than that the national embarasment.
    Hey T, tell him what a national embarasment that those Texas Highway Patrol officers are, LOL. Disgrace.
    Anyway, don’t ever be affraid of these animals and their total disregard for the 4rth ammendment. Remember kids, “what you say can and will be held against you in a court of law”…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

  • shawn

    “If [I'd] only had one or two beers, tell [him], and we can work something out.”

    Oh, BS. Either someone is intoxicated or not. If not, he can do nothing. If he is, the cop should not work anything out.

  • shawn

    @T

    It is just so horrible that there are people who feel they shouldn’t have to put up with the intrusion without cause.
    What cops need is subjected to checkpoints where someone wants you to kiss their ass or be held up for half an hour. And them make up excuses that allow them to search your car and scatter your belongings for YOU to pick up.

  • http://www.badgeabuse.com badgeabuse

    703 691 2131 call and ask who was on the stop…give them tag number ….then call the board member for that area the stop took place in and give him an earful.

  • Rusty Shackleford

    You should have told him to clean up his mess in your vehicle, unless he wants his vehicle ransacked.

  • Yankee Fan

    Is avoiding a checkpoint illegal, much less suspicious?

  • t.

    Devil: I’m sorry your life really sucks.

    Shawn: We get stopped at checkpoints too. Don’t be stupid.

    YF: He tried to avoided the checkpoint and got stopped. Check.

  • in.S.O.L.

    @t
    That’s not what YF asked. He asked if its illegal to avoid a checkpoint.
    @yf
    Its my understanding that in most States as long as your not in the “cone area” and you can accomplish a legal u turn, its perfectly legal to do so. That doesn’t mean you wont undoubtedly be chased down. And harassed!

  • red

    The cops chased my father down when we made his normal right turn onto the road to our home that happened to be right before a DUI road block. They came screaming up and jumped out with their guns drawn as he exited his car in our driveway. Of course back then him being a college professor in his own driveway meant the cops dropped the issue right away. Today they’d probably force a Breathalyzer test/car search.

  • Yankee Fan

    I only asked because as a Califiornian, speaking about DUI checkpoints, one of the legal requirements that police need to meet is to provide an alternate route around it. A person can’yt be legally stopped for avoiding a checkpoint of this type as long as their maneuvers were legal. Such as the afor entioned u-turn!

  • t.

    Read the article…

    Guy jumped a median. He doesn’t go into detail enough about the rest.

    Tried to avoid checkpoint. Got pulled over. Check.

  • Yankee Fan

    Thats a fair answer but your earlier responses lead one to believe that yes he had to go through them and that is not the truth. If his traffic maneuver was illegal then technically it is a legal stop!!

  • thinkfreeer

    Clearly, if you need gas, you get it at a gas station when it is convenient. Needing gas is no excuse to make a U-turn after seeing blue flashing lights ahead. The author can’t possibly expect us to be that stupid that we would accept that as an excuse.

    Having an expired inspection sticker (for months) and being aware of that, yet still driving around and expecting to somehow get away with it, is a good reason to try to avoid a roadblock/inspection. But knowingly having an expired sticker that long is just asking for trouble, in my opinion. And if it was a DUI roadblock, why would they look at your inspection sticker? Granted, they might. But pulling a U-turn is far more suspicious and therefore attracts more attention. Better to just proceed normally. If the author wanted to protest the roadblock, he didn’t say so. He was just afraid of being caught.

    Where I reside, a ticket for no (expired) inspection sticker is $50. You can get an inspection following the ticket and go to court and you will probably be found not responsible, but these days you have to pay $25 court costs to go there. Technically, they can impound your vehicle, but they probably would not. Without that, your maximum penalty would have been $50. For that someone would try to avoid a roadblock? I don’t like them, either, and in my opinion they violate the 4th Amendment, but unfortunately, in some judges’ opinions they do not.

    The officer did not flip on his lights, he activated his wigwags. And yes that means you pull over, and hope he just wants to go by.

    You are not required to help an officer prove a violation of the law. You are not required to defend yourself against any accusations. It would be good to be polite and friendly. You cannot expect to be well treated if you spew forth disrespect and hatred. But you do not have to answer any questions or agree to any search. So don’t, politely. Something like, “I’m sorry, officer, I don’t wish to answer any questions without my attorney.” That’s pretty simple, but hard to do if you feel intimidated by the law. (by the way, for those of you who think this is legal advice, it is not legally considered to be legal advice) Also, it is violation of the law to lie to a LEO, even if it’s not a violation for the LEO to lie.

    In my opinion, even though not required everywhere, if you have a concealed carry permit, it would be best to provide that with your license and registration, to avoid any overreaction to any perceived threat you may be to the officer (see more on this from former NH LEO Massad Ayoob). They definitely do not like loaded weapons on the other side. Would you? So make it clear you are on their side in that respect, even if you do not want to incriminate yourself for violations of the law. You might also want to state that you are unarmed at the moment. Or, if armed, ask the officer what he would like you to do about the weapon. I know some will disagree with me on this. But I think on this one it’s best to be on the safe side, and if you don’t want to answer questions, you have already provided the answer without a question. Best to keep your hands in view in this situation also. You might want to drive with your wallet out of your pocket and in easy reach. I would guess that the officer asked the author to step out of the vehicle because of the carry permit.

    I don’t think dilated pupils are probable cause for a search or a K9. So, it does seem like abuse of probable cause. If they did find anything it could be inadmissible in court. A K9 search is without probable cause should also be inadmissible. A K9 alert is considered probable cause (unfortunately) to search the area causing the alert. The author gave his permission to search the truck bed. No need for probable cause there.

    There was Supreme Judicial Court ruling on the topic of probable cause in Massachusetts after possession of marijuana of under one ounce was decriminalized. An officer searched the vehicle after “smelling the odor of marijuana.” The case was tossed because the smell cannot possibly indicate the quantity of marijuana, and since possession under one ounce is not a crime, the smell alone does not constitute probable cause that a crime was committed.

  • Slave

    dikc, Socialism does not lead to a police state. This would be more on the lines of fascism. Even then that does not guarantee a police state. Right wing views does seem to guarantee a police state though.
    Spend some time and learn about political groups. Wikipedia is easy to use.

  • Yankee Fan

    When you continuously say…Tried to avoid a checkpoint. Check……are you saying then, He is required to go through them?

  • Yankee Fan

    Thinkfreeer,

    I do not care much if he was stopped it was obvious why he found a break in the median and if that was illegal to do, as they usually are, then he was stopped for that and not avoiding a checkpoint. The answer that T gave leads a reader to believe that in his mind anyway, that he is required to go through them and I do not think that is correct. Making a legal traffic maneuver is perfectly valid to go around them such as a u-turn or any turn.

  • t.

    All the is required…everywhere…for a traffic stop is RS. Now according to the story, he was approaching the checkpoint…saw the lights AND KNEW THAT IT WAS CHECKPOINT, then shot threw a break in the median (whatever that may be) and did a quick u-turn to avoid the checkpoint. As soon as he did it, he saw the officer in the parking lot watching for exactly that kind of behavior, started upland pulled him over. Remember…the standard is RS, not PC. Is it reasonable that for the officer to believe that driver of the vehicle, do what he described, as suspicious? That he is avoiding the checkpoint because he has committed an offense of someknid? In 17 years Ive worked lots of all kinds of checkpoints. The behavior / driving discussed here is certainly RS for the stop. RS is a pretty low standard to meet. It can’t just be a hunch…but it doesn’t have to be much more than that either. I wasn’t at this stop. But just from the description of the activity / driving that he himself wrote about, no problem with the stop o h o snif. (Where I work you don’t need any additional RS or PC. To have a k-9 sniff. You may need it to hold someone long enough to get the dog there, but not to sniff)

  • Yankee Fan

    T,

    Thats a good stroy but thats means nothing. Did he think he was avoiding the checkpoint because he might be doing something illegal? What does that matter as checkpoints are not required of citizens to go through if the police erect one. I gave my example atleast from California where the police have to provide an alternate route to avoid them and as long as you make legal driving maneuvers, they ca not legally stop you. You are literally saying that if the cop thinks he is avoiding the checkpoint because he might be doing something illegal or up to no good with nothing else but his wild belief that he is avoiding said checkpoint because of the above mentioned, that a cop is legal in stopping him if he committed no traffic infraction?

  • Yankee Fan

    I am not saying what the story outlines was good on his part as the driver of the truck but the avoiding the checkpoint and the rs for the stop are 2 different things., Citizens are not required to drive through them as far as i can recall. The stop had to have been made based on an illegal traffic maneuver and not him avoiding the checkpoint. As far as RS goes, I know it is a low standard but it is not a hunch and not even close. It has to be observable facts that REASONABLE officer would deduce is someone up to no good. If the explaination for the behaviour can be something inocuous, then no the cop is wrong and they are required to use the “Totality of the Circumstances” to look at factors that are inocuous to lessen their belief that something foul is afoot with the same standard they look at factors that raise their suspicion. In this case it appears the driver made an illegal turn and was pulled over for that. If I approach an intersection and decided to avoid said checkpoint and make a legal u-turn and you light me up, you better have a damn good reason as avoiding a checkpoint is not illegal and I bet no court anywhere will side with you. I would love to see you try and tell a judge that you pulled me over because I made some kind of turn and you took my, not wanting to go through the checkpoint, as suspicious of me maybe trying to hide some illegalities.

  • thinkfreeer

    If there is a median strip of some kind – dirt, grass, fence, curbing, whatever – any kind of unpaved strip – and then there is a paved section connected to the lanes in the other direction, it is legal in most places to make a U-turn, unless there are signs or a law prohibiting the U-turn. The only reasonable suspicion, then, is that the person was avoiding the checkpoint. But avoiding a checkpoint is not illegal, so there was no crime or violation. So then there was no reason for the stop, except for investigation. Had the person been ticketed or arrested, the defense could have used this to throw out any evidence collected.

    However, whatever the person said would not be thrown out. Another reason to shut up.

    There is not enough case law to know for sure whether dilated pupils are probable cause for anything. But I would fight it, if that were the only reason for probable cause. I drive home from my annual eye exam with dilated pupils and I didn’t violate anything.

    There is case law which says that a traffic stop may not be expanded to a drug dog sniff without probable cause for drugs. You may not detain a traffic stopped person any longer than it takes to deal with the traffic infraction. See ILLINOIS v. CABALLES.

    The officer probably should have followed the vehicle to see some kind of violation first. All of this said, the officer made a wise choice not to issue any citation or make an arrest, even though he would have been able to issue an inspection sticker violation. The driver made a number of unwise choices.

    Hopefully readers will have learned something.

  • shawn

    @T

    “Shawn: We get stopped at checkpoints too. Don’t be stupid.”

    And cops wave the magic badge. Professional courtesy. Cops don’t get grilled over what their business is and all that, or stopped for long periods of time for refusing to give the pork the requested information.

  • shawn

    @Yankee Fan

    Everything is RS to T. These days even following the law is RS, because obviously you’re trying to ovoid giving the cops are reason to stop you, and that is reason enough.

    Boiled down, cops think they should be able to stop people on their whim, without any cause whatsoever. Even T believes that, regardless of what he’ll say for public consumption.

    The entire point of checkpoints is that you are stopping people without one bit of RS.

  • shawn

    @T

    Oh, and cops with badges don’t generally get their cars ransacked, and the asshole cops leaving them to clean up after the piglets play time.

    Something I always wanted to do was get a dump truck of manure and scatter lots of pepper for the dog to react to. Then watch the cops dig through the shit. I somehow suspect I’ll be shot for reaching into my pants.

  • t.

    Thinker: You said exactly what I said about the dog sniff. From the story told…there was no additional delay.

    YF: A traffic violation is PC. The standard for a stop is RS. Big difference. Its all about behavior and knowing what you’re seeing. As example. I see you “drifting in your lane” or making a “wide right turn”. While neither is a violation, both can definitely give me RS to stop you and more than likely you’ll b impaired. Look up the NTHSA studies. They’re pretty clear. Now if you don’t like it, I understand that. But saying / thinking that’s it just some “wild belief” isn’t so. Training and experience, seeing and understanding the behaviors that you see, the “totality of the circumstances”. That why, as described, there is plenty of RS for this stop.

    @Shawn: I realize you don’t like the police. But your arguments are getting weaker and weaker. But like checkpoints…don’t drive. Over and over they have been found to constitutional as…once again…those types of short interactions aren’t seizures and aren’t an unreasonable police interaction. Dude, get over it or not, either way, but move on from that false standing.

  • Shawn

    @T

    Ah, the response of modern law. Just submit to what you want. Lots of things have been found to be constitutional in the last hundred years. Heard of the man who was prevented from growing wheat for his own use because he DIDN’T put it on the market? Stopped under the Commerce Clause.

    I’m not impressed one bit over judges deciding that the law can do something. RS and PC have lost all meaning anymore. I’ve been stopped myself for the act of FOLLOWING traffic laws to the letter.

    More and more, I look around and I don’t recognize this country. We’re so afraid of the risks of life anymore that people toss personal dignity out the window. SWAT, commissioned for emergency situations now serves ALL warrants no matter how minor. And the number is climbing fast. Often they act on flimsy information and hit the wrong house.
    Checkpoints once unheard of have now reached the point where they one department wants a permanent checkpoint.
    Cops use drug dogs knowing they are unreliable, and even train them to give the PC the cop wants on demand. Cops routinely say “I smell pot” and find NOTHING.

    I’m no more a fan of drunk driving than you are, nor do I play the copblock game of trying to insist that traffic laws are bad and that people should be allowed to drive without consequences to bad driving choices.
    But that little quote from Ben Franklin seems to have been forgotten.
    “He who will surrender essential liberty for temporary security deserves and will have neither.”

    One day you might wake up and realize what you helped create. And what you helped to destroy. And we won’t even have the security you were trying to provide.

    Since I like quotes so much, the wisdom of others being valuable to me, here is another.
    “You’re only as free as the leash you’re on. Pull too hard, and they’ll hang you by it.”

  • t.

    Shawn: Dude, you need to take a look around at the society in which you live. The real one, not the computer web site one that you think you live in.

    I’ll go first to one of your favorites, SWAT and the supposed “wrong house” phenomenon. As you point out teams are being used more and more, true. But you never stop think of why. You want to think its so they can play with toys or what ever. The SWAT usage is up as a diret rresult of many of the extreme people that post on this site…the resist resist resist folks. The ones who want to shoot at everyone. The ones who think the law doesn’t apply to them kind. You see the very fewmistakes. If you look at all of the warrants served by SWAT (a lot of them as you point out) and then at the “wrong house” ones…statistically you don’t even come anywhere near 0%. Is it bad when it happens? Yes. Does it happen often? Absolutely not. But you drone on and on about. OK. BTW, do ever think through that idea that some on this site bring up all the time about how police work isn’t dangerous and about how assaults on officers are way down? Know why? Its be cause of tactics. If I show up and its just me alone…you may very well think “I can fight or run and get away”. 2 of us? Maybe still thinking that. 3 – 4, well maybe not. Now, you don’t fight…we don’t fight. Win / win. Now as I pointed out to the truly stupid around here before, the ones who just want to fight / resist and think that I’m supposed to stand there and go toe to toe with you and duke it out and call us pussies because we get help there. Led look at that. You and I duke it out. If I’m up on my and I win…but you get hurt and sue…the taxpayer pick up the tab for it be s invariably there will be someone who thinks like you that somehow the police shouldn’t have arrested you or some such crap and give reward the bad guy for his unlawful resistance. Or, we fight and your up on your game and you win and I get hurt. Now the taxpayers are footing the bill for all of my medical bills, or my “paid vacation” while I can’t work while I’m hurt. Any winners yet? Or haseveryone lost so far?

    Now iI’ll agree about some court decisions. But probably not the same ones as you. Look at some of the lawsuits that happen and want some plaintiffs are winning for. Go to your local court house and watch and learn. You will see case with lots of evidence, witnesses, even confessions that you get notguilties back on or see dismissed. That doesn’t help anyone. We all lose when there isn’t accountability.

    As for the famous Franklin quote. Quotes are a lot like statistics…you can make them apply to which ever point / side you are on. You offer up that quote and I will offer back the constitution, the ideas of which he helped craft. That document is used by various sides to show their points. Same words…very different ideas about what they mean. I have tried to point out that the document needs to be seen total…not pulled apart just to strengthen your side (or the other). And you have to look at (as S OTUS often does, other writings by the founding fathers to expand on what they meant when they wrote the constitution. I’ll offer a controversial example. No where in the constitution do you see the words “seperation of church and state” and ( IMO ) that’s not implied or wanted. Jefferson, who is often quoted here about freedom, and did most of the work on the constitution, clearly believed that this nation was founded as a Christian nation. He started a congressional church. His idea aboutthe ggovernment not founding a religion…meaning that we wouldn’t have the “church of england” where everyone would have to be catholic, or methodist or whatever. But its very clear that the F.F:’s clearly though of us as a christian nation. An idea that is lost / poluted . I offer that as, as I have said I h pas, the document has to between in total, not peices. I have told you many times that the constitution sets up the government. Lays out the limits of government. Quarentees the freedoms from government. But you still want to throw out the ideas of reasonablness. The F.F.’s couldn’t foresee our current society. Cars, cameras, internet, potent drug use. But they incorporated the concept of reasonableness. The constitution simply doesn’t not talk about no governemntal interaction. And yet…you still just won’t get that.

    Oh, and as for the I smell pot thing. Guess what? I don’t smoke. Not cigarettes or pot (or anything else). Pot smokers, like cigarette smokers, forget that they get desensitized to the smells of it. And, because so many pot smokers are in the “only my rights matter” group, they wantto go out and drive around while they smoke and impair themselves while they drive. Not a very reasonable thing…and yet, here you are, basically defending that action. BTW, Rican smell pot myself while walkingthrought the parking lot or even when cars drive past me in the street. And the smell from the smoke gets into your clothes, and then transfers into the seats f your car. And if your friends smoke and get into your car…there it is. Not that hard guy.

  • thinkfreeer

    Even though off topic, I can’t let one comment slide uncontested.

    Although a popular idea among modern day Christians, the concept that the USA was set up as a Christian nation is absolutely false. There is a huge difference between setting up a nation which allows the free practice of Christianity – or whatever religious belief you wish – and setting up a Christian nation.

    Jefferson was, in fact, raised in the Church of England in Virginia (later the Episcopal Church), but spent a lot of time studying religious matters and chose to be unaffiliated as an adult. He sometimes said he had his own religion. He was certainly not one who wished to impose his religion on others. He was considered to be a deist and came up with the “Nature’s God” in the Declaration of Independence.

    Jefferson was convinced that separation of church and state was necessary to prevent tyranny (tyranny seems to be favored by some here). The founding fathers did not wish to list rights in the Constitution, because that might limit rights in the future should they fail to list them all. The idea of the Bill of Rights as the first 10 amendments was then agreed to anyway. The First Amendment includes an expression of the separation of church and state, even though it does not specifically use those words. It is often referred to as “the establishment clause,” especially by the Supreme Court, because it bans the establishment of religion by the state. This is why things like school prayer have been ruled unconstitutional, because it is seen as the state establishing (by coercion) religion.

    That said, I am not interested in further debate on this matter in this thread, because it is off topic.

  • T

    Thinker: Sort of by not quite. Jefferson founded a church in congress because he knew the importance of God. But there clearly isn’t any “aspersions of church be state ” in the constitution. I understand that people look at the establishment clause…bu it clear isn’t mentioned. Bu the concept tht this wasn’t founded as a Christian nation is clearly wrong. God permeates the F.F’s writnings.

  • DB

    A few things should be clarified. I had no way to know that there was a checkpoint ahead, just emergency vehicle activity, could have been one cop on the side of the road. Flashing ligts are no indication of a checkpoint. I made a U-turn legally. I was ordered to open the back of the truck by the guy with the gun who claimed to have consent to search, I did not wilfully open it.

  • Yankee Fan

    The first amendment does not contain the phrase “seperation of church and state and no, the idea this is a christian nation is not false, do more research!

  • Shazbot Almighty

    Wow, t, quite the dissertation that does nothing but show the rest of the world what an unthinking fascist zombie robot you are. There really is nothing good to say about you except that hopefully, very soon, you won’t be around anymore.

  • Yankee Fan

    T,

    Amen Brother!

  • Aaron

    YF: The very first line of the very first amendment – kind of gives it some gravity – says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. In short, we don’t support religion, but we don’t prohibit it, either. Show me where Washington, Jefferson, et al, decided on a national religion.

  • Yankee Fan

    They did not but it permeated the very essence of their lives. Go read George Washington’s farewell address to the nation. Here is an excerpt;

    One of the most referenced parts of Washington’s letter was his strong support of the importance of religion and morality in not only promoting private and public happiness, but also in promoting the political prosperity of the nation. He argues that religious principles promote the protection of property, reputation, and life that are the foundations of justice. Washington goes so far as to say that the nation’s morality cannot be maintained without religion and, since morality is necessary in popularly elected governments, religion is vital in maintaining the popularly elected government of the United States. He writes:

    Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice ? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

    Which one do you think he means? I do not want this to be a religious debate and they were not making a national religion but I personally think those that believe this nation was not founded on chtristian principles are fools. It is your choice to believe what you want and I will not discuss this further as this is a very hot-button topic!

  • http://www.policemisconduct.net Glenn

    The whole intricate fairy tale t. vomits up about the glorious SWAT teams and the depraved citizenry sounds almost plausible…right up till the point you figure out that the cops are the ones shipping in the drugs, then reaping incredible profits from asset forfeiture laws.

    They got ya coming and going with a good ole’ problem – reaction – solution ponzi scheme. But the people are waking up. Quickly, and in great numbers. And that is why assholes like t. pay such close attention to CopBlock.

  • t.

    Glenn: thanks for more stupid.

  • BluEyeDevil

    @Glenn
    It is a true fact that the US government has allowed the cultivation and distribution of opium. Know some boys who guarded the fields. Not sure if local pigs are in on the scheme but they benefit from asset forfeiture laws which is a crime in itself. It creates a corporate for profit mantality in the police force. Any siezed money or property should be put in the public coffers.
    @T.
    Why do you troll cop block, LOL. I haven’t seen convince one person here that your warped way of thinking is relavent to holding police accountable for their crimes, which are numerous.

  • thinkfreeer

    There is frequent reference to God, Providence, Creator, and sacred in the various writings. There is little or no mention of Christ, Jesus, Savior, or any particular church or belief system. There is no mention of any of these terms in the Constitution. If it was that important, don’t you think they would have at least mentioned it? The Declaration of Independence includes such terms as: Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God, endowed by their Creator, And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor. Many were religious men – some were not. Various Christian sects left England and Europe for religious freedom.

    But Christianity had nothing to do with the legal founding of the nation. I say this not as a counter argument, It is a statement of fact.

  • Yankee Fan

    I said what I said as well as a statement of fact. I never said jesus, god and etc. I said this is a nation where the founders had christian beliefs which guided their principles. Go do more research!

  • Yankee Fan

    Your opinion or what you call fact is your beliefs. My unerstanding of the founding fathers says opposite of what you say here. Like i said, or maybe should have said is that christian people use their god to guide their decisions. The terrm christian is loosly defined in somes mind where many different religious beliefs are under their umbrella of christianity. At the minimum I will always say that this nation was not founded by godless people. They were christian people who had a deep belief that religion had a strong sense and tie to morality, christian morality. Take what you will from what I said. I will not say you are wrong as this is always a serious issue to open up but as a former student of history and my studies of the FF’S, I find it very obvious to me that they used their beliefs in god and used that in their decision making and thoughts to create the foundation of this nation. Thats this guys opinion!

  • T

    Thinker: I’ll respect your views. But the FF’s writing and speeches where permeated with references and beliefs in God. Jefferson founded a church. The clear fact that they didn’t want to for e anyone else into a religion is plain to see in the constitution. But the fact that they thought of this as a Christian nation is also clear.

    Wow, way off topic.

    Merry Christmas anyway

  • T

    To answer your question: Yes. Physical impossibility would be a positive defense to claims of rape, sex offense, sodomy. Molestation is a gray area, not as specific as the others where pentetration is absolutely required. If you watched the video, you can clearly see that penetration didn’t occur. Body me Janice rule it out. Then there was the woman’s none reaction and the. What the driver said. I agree with you, thank goodness there is this tape otherwise there’s no telling what the claim might be. Probably why is officer was smart enough to do it intentionally in front of the camera.

  • T

    As for predictions….

    Trooper will get a warning letter inner file about doing searches like this in such a visible to public way.
    Both woman will set for 10,000 each.

  • thinkfreeer

    Merry Christmas, ho, ho ho.

    Done with off topic. I’ve done many years of research. As far as I’m concerned, it doesn’t really matter whether or not the nation was founded as a Christian nation 240 years later. It has no bearing on what we do today.

  • shawn

    “As for predictions….

    Trooper will get a warning letter inner file about doing searches like this in such a visible to public way.
    Both woman will set for 10,000 each.”

    And I predict she will again do something as bad later on. Why? Because cops are never shown the door. Oh, a hand full are scape goated if the situation is public enough. But that’s what it is. Instead doing what they should do by truly punishing and even firing the bad apples, many of whom are protected against the sheriff’s wishes.

    We’ve seen time and again cops who get incident after incident, all at tax payer expense.

  • t.

    The problem is….if there was PC to do to search where she did….she didn’t do anything wrongother than do it in such a visible way . That being the case, what should happen to her (assuming there was PC for such a search) ?

  • in.S.O.L.

    simple t, a complete stranger should hold her against her will and sexually assault her. Fair’s fair.